johnnycake
WKR
1) You should not assume any of us have bothered to read any of the drivel in any of the pages of this thread. This is the Internet, and most of us are fiddle farting around here while we shite away at work. Sometimes literally.since this isn't an argument, but another mockery, I can't really answer it in kind without sneering.
Do you want me to feel humiliated because I offered to answer someone's question seriously and offered to incorporate improvements from willing contributors? A number of guys have read it and found it very helpful.
I'm not sure why guys want to attack the length of something without reading it only knowing the general subject it is about.
I have a hard time imagining a topic that could not warrant 15 pages of thoughtful argument.
Mike Moore's august 23rd review of the Kenai and Vario jackets is 11 pages when pasted into word. Granted, there were pictures.
His conclusion is: one is a lighter jacket than the other. Wear the warmer when it's colder. They're both good jackets.
It's a fine review. I did skim it a bit. Others prob read the whole thing.
Are you going to mock him for writing 11 pages on two jackets that are nearly identical? Or are you going to respect that the guy spent his time wearing them in different conditions outside on our behalf and offered us his thoughts?
I am a little confused about mocking 13 pages you haven't read on a site where we spend endless words comparing .005 of ballistic coefficients, 20grams per yard of insulation, 50 cubic measurements of down loft, 5 grains of bullet differences and 75 FPS between hunting loads.
You might say, "well, it can make a bid difference." if so, I'd agree, and I say that is true for moral philosophy too.
how many pages in MS word is this discussion thread? If you've gotten this far you've read at least twice the length of my essay.
2) Morals are subjective and inherently relative. FPS, BC, and insulation metrics are all objective with subjective perceptions on what the marginal utility is and whether the marginal cost is justified. Your comparison is inapposite, which bodes poorly for your deductive reasoning skills. Making an argument about relative superiority based on moral positions is fundamentally illogical.
3) In all forms of persuasive communication the number one rule is to know your audience. Your posts speak for themselves as to your lack of adherence to that precept. Your posts in this thread also are bloated with redundant language as you try to stumble into a point. This only reinforces both my certainty that what you say in 13 single spaced pages could be better said in fewer and my lack of desire to ever have to proof or edit your writing.